I have no idea why people are so fascinated with what version number they use but it is totally unimportant, they are also implementing background updating so it will soon be a moot point.

Despite having it explained numerous times?

There's nothing inherently wrong with doing it the way they are doing it, other than the fact it's against expectations. The public is used to version numbers being for "major" releases, not just a new feature or two. That's the way it's been for most software for quite some time now. So when people see a program coming out with "major" number changes for almost every release, it makes it look like they are just rushing out versions for the sake of rushing out versions. Trying to play "number catch-up" with the other browsers.

If the industry has a de-facto standard, which it does, then making use of that standard makes sense. Flaunting that standard does not, unless you have a really compelling reason to do so. Where is the compelling reason? Matching what Chrome is doing isn't it.

The new development model along with the new versioning system has produced a much better browser in a modest period of time, something that their old approach couldn't do any longer.

The versioning system had nothing to do with it. The versioning system doesn't control release schedule or features. They could have released the exact versions that they've put out over the last year with a saner versioning system.

I'm not sure I agree with the conclusions - or some of the premises. The maps in ME2 weren't really any bigger than the ME3 ones. ME2 didn't have a larger party system, they just had more characters to choose from. The weapon configuration was improved significantly in ME3. Quite a few of the features they removed ended up improving the play experience - hacking and bypassing in ME2 are tedious but not difficult. Harvesting materials to fund weapon/armour upgrades was one of the most complained about features in ME2.

Really, if it weren't for the horrible ending(s) (and to some degree the annoying "do everything" control system), I'd have ranked ME3 above ME2. ME1 is still probably the best, although its flaws are noteworthy too - recycled buildings, way too many weapons, horrible game balance, etc.

I would agree that they worked too hard on dramatic cutscenes, or, spent too much time with them. I didn't give a damn about the stupid kid, and being forced to "chase" him in dreams was pointless. And I'm never a fan of having the player fight someone in game, and then "force" a loss (seriously, come on, I was easily kicking Kai Leng's ass).

You're using singleplayer story as the indicator of whether an FPS is mediocre, good or spectacular?

No, I'm not. That's why I used the word "example".

Story is one game element that wasn't really present at all, then Valve came along and implemented it well into a game. Nowadays, virtually all FPS make an effort to have a quality story (with varying degrees of success) in a FPS (assuming a single player component). What is that an example of? It's an example of Valve pioneering an aspect of FPSers.

The same is true of id, but they didn't pioneer story, they pioneered FPSers in general. But that doesn't mean that their games were "awesome", it means that with little to no competition, their games stood out from the other games of the time. When Doom came out, what was competing for the FPS market? And then Quake came out, and was a vast improvement on 3d design, when the other games of the time were still using the "fake" 3d that Doom had pioneered - again, allowing it to stand out.

id games had the reputation they had not because of amazing gameplay, but because of technological prowess. Today, they can't leverage that prowess to give them enough of an edge over other games to stand out. So they are having to rely on their other abilities to make a good game. And recent history has demonstrated that their other abilities are lacking compared to other companies.

You know, I was thinking about this a bit, and what it comes down to is that I don't think id was ever great. It was a lack of comparison. There was nothing spectacular about Doom beyond the novelty of it. There was nothing spectacular about Quake beyond the technical innovation.

An easy example is Half Life (I know id didn't make it, but irrelevant to the example). What made Half Life stand out was its comparisons - FPS at the time didn't have storylines - or, not compelling ones like HL. It stood out from the games of its time based on its uniqueness. But imagine if the original HL wasn't made, some other game did the "storyline FPS", and HL was released today - modern graphics, but otherwise the same story. It might be considered "good", but that'd be the extent of it.

The same is true of what id did. They pioneered a genre, and the lack of competition made their products really stand out. But it was that lack of competition that made them appear great - not their actual products. Now that there is plenty of competition, id no longer has anything to make it shine over the rest. But that just points out the fact that it wasn't game excellence that they were recognized for - it was that no one else was doing what they did.

And that's why Rage was a disappointment, like Doom 3 was a disappointment, like Doom 4 will likely be a disappointment. They relied on the pioneering edge to make their games stand out, and now that they've lost that, they have nothing to fall back on. And I can't see Romero changing that, even if they were to get back together.

You DO realize this is EA, right? They put vital storyline info in DLC as well.

Well, yes, there is that. It's a shame that allowance have to be made for stupidity tho'.

Of course, nobody says that Miranda was AWARE of where the base was.

Yeah, I thought of that, but even still, they could have acknowledged that in-game somewhere. Oh well, it's only one of many such faults, so I won't dwell on it too much. There's been worse in book series that I've read.

Once you get four players together that really cooperate and know how to play, the MP is absolutely glorious fun.

Hmm, I suppose I have to try it at some point. I've been resisting out of stubbornness - ME is not supposed to have multiplayer, dammit!

That's another one of those things that they dig into in the novels. His secret base is mobile, and every time after someone external visits, it relocates to a different star system.

So they DID actually think about that, they just don't tell you in the game...

Well, two responses to that... First off, they need to deal with stuff like that in the actual game. Having it dealt with in third-party material is pretty pointless, since there's no guaruntee people will bother reading them

Secondly - bullshit. The star in ME2 is identical to the one in ME3. Unless the secret base takes the star with it when it relocates.

I know that plot holes between games are common, but as I'm doing a "full playthrough", just wanted to point out one that leaped out at me as I started in to ME2...

Start of ME2. Scene is set. Miranda and Illusive Man are having a conversation... At the Illusive Man's secret base! And we aren't talking she's there as a holograph, she's physically there. Considering that in ME3 she's supposedly "loyal" to you, and has broken ties with (and is being hunted by) Cerberus, she just might casually mention "Oh, yeah, you know that base you're looking for? It's over at X".

Name any modern game that advertises how your choices influence the game and doesn't cop out with the lame multiple cutscene endings

Well, Mass Effect 2 would be a decent example. If you don't do loyalty quests, or choose the wrong companions for jobs as you are doing the "suicide mission", you end up with significant consequences at the end of the story. Even in Mass Effect 1, it's the choice as you go that affects the ending (saving the council or not). It's not just a "pick your ending" situation.

It's just sad that whoever did the story at Bioware thought the ending(s) worked. It would have been cliche as hell, sure, but they very easily could have done an "and everyone lives happily ever after".

Heh, you're going to beat me. I could only find one of my ME1->ME2 saves, so I went back to ME1 to do another playthrough. It'll be interesting to do all 3 of them back-to-back. At least I'll remember the choices I've made in the previous games this time.

Sadly, someone at bioware needs a punch in the kittens over the ending. The entire thing feels like someone had a seizure and tacked it on.

It was bad, but it didn't feel tacked on, it completely fit with the style that they'd been pushing the whole game.

Spoiler tags:The whole "dream" thing with the kid, the various sequences where you faced Kai Lang, where even if you were easily kicking his ass, they forced you to lose to him, the various and relatively heavy handed forced character deaths... That's all similar in style to what they did with the ending.

Doesn't mean I like it, frankly I thought the ending(s) sucked. I felt the same way I did with the Deus Ex endings - instead of having the various decisions I made along the way matter, they just give you a bunch of options (crappy ones in this case) and make you choose. Ending cop-out 101.

They claim it's possible. I got 3105, and I didn't fully explore everything, but I probably got about 90%. Not sure if I could have got to even 4000, but some of the decisions I made weren't numerically optimal.

Still, I refuse to play multiplayer just to change the single player ending. Going to poke about the save file, and see if it stores the number somewhere.

Not that, apparently, the 4000/5000 point endings are really that much better. After having "the hero saves the day and rides off into the sunset" endings for the last two, would it have killed them to have that an option here? I know they were going for the dramatic effect, but honestly, you have to consider what your fans want, and I assure you, they didn't want the endings that BioWare made (as evidenced by the posts on their forums).